(8:20 - 10:00) The scene when the two men approach a woman on a sidewalk, saving her from a gang of vagrants illustrates the theme of nonconformity in society and the consequences of carrying a burden by showing the consequences of stopping the gang from bothering the woman on the sidewalk. First, we are introduced to the gang, a ruthless group of youth adults, led by Roman himself, who like to steal each other's food and throw rocks at cats. Next, we seethe girl, she is a pretty, petite woman, standing alone on the sidewalk, seemingly waiting. The gang tries to sneak up behind her, but they are stopped when she sees their reflection in the mirror of the wardrobe as the two men approach her. The gang gets mad a begin to beat the two men who brought the wardrobe. First, they almost knock out Henryk, then Jakub starts to wind up for a punch, but the gang gets to him first, he beat up by the director, Roman Polanski, who looks to be barely old then a schoolchild.
The scene is shown using a mix of eye-level mid shots and closeups, to show the contention between the two men with the wardrobe and the gang, and wide shots, to show location of characters in the scene. The lighting is fairly high-key, mostly daylight, with some shadows coming from buildings and trees. This helps to set the tense, but brief, tone of the scene. The sound in this scene is just a classical score piece of music and some brief sound effects. There is no dialogue in the scene, as with most of the film because Polanski did not feel that dialogue would add to the conflict in the scene. The only constant sound is the score piece that plays throughout the scene.
The mise-en-scène is basic for the scene, because it is just several men on the sidewalk, with a wardrobe. The décor of the scene is just an empty street, lined with grass, and a sidewalk between the grass and several buildings. The costume just everyday clothing in the style of late-1950s Europeans, with long khaki pants, short caps, long-sleeve checked shirts or short-sleeved striped shirts, and brown outdoor shoes. Many of the men in the scene are young and clean-shaven, but Jakub is slightly balding with a mustache and beard. The woman from the beginning of the scene is wearing high-heiled shoes, and a light skirt suit, with long, straight black hair. The location of the scene is outside a building, on an empty side street. The lighting is high key because it is day-light, but some low-key lighting is used because of the shadows casted by the buildings and trees in the scene that show that it is sometime in the afternoon. The cinematographer uses wide shots throughout this scene to show where all of the characters are in relation to each other, but he mostly used mid-shots to depict the struggle between the two men with the wardrobe and the gang of miscreants.
The use of high-key light and mid-shots helps to establish this scene as an illustration of the theme of this short film: nonconformity in society and the consequences of carrying a burden. Through the high-key lighting, the viewer comes to understand how the two men have put themselves on display; they have nothing to hide. However, not everyone appreciates their "outness": the young gang, already seen trying to bother a young woman, feels that these two men are weak fools that have tread upon the gang's territory, so they have to pay the price with their blood. Polanski did not mean the film to be especially dramatic, like the films of Hollywood in the 1940s. Also, the mid-shots show that the characters in this film represent themes, but there is just as much significance in the story as there is beyond the story: the film focuses on interactions between people. Mid-shot are perfect for showing interactions because they allow enough room to depict several peoiple in frame together, as opposed to close-ups which can only show one or two people or wide-shots that do not show any detail of people. Polanski used a high concept (two men and a wardrobe) to express his disdain of conformity. He create two seemingly blameless characters; throughout the film, they seem to do nothing wrong, always trying to help or be helpful. However, everyone in the town seems to either try to avoid them or tries to pick fights with the two men. One could say that the only thing that the two men could have possibly done wrong is that they are carrying around a wardrobe, which is seen by most people as a sing of femininity In this way, they are nonconformists, choosing to act as they please instead of acting how society believes they should act. These two men could be a metaphor for homosexuality, an issue that had risen to prominence in post-war Europe in the mid-1950s because of changes in European values during this time. In the short film, these two men do not just "come out of the closet" like normal homosexuals, they actually "come out with the closet", which I assume is a stronger declaration of gay pride then merely coming out without bringing the closet along for the ride. Though these two proud men are open about themselves, however; they were not loud about themselves because even men who had never met them, the gang, felt the need to publicly humiliate these poor seamen by beating them to within an inch of their lives. Also, in the end, the two men are rejected: everyone refuses to take the wardrobe, so they must return to the ocean with their wardrobe, having failed their mission of spreading kindness through the town. These are the consequences for the actions of these brave nonconformists. Henryk and Jakub are models for modern age through their openess; however, even the most open and happy spirits are eventually grounded with loss of innocence through the harsh reality of life.
Video (About 8:20 to 10:00):
Polanski: Assignment #2:
With the ending of his film, Chinatown, Polanski was successful in his attempt to make the statement that in the end, there will always be more powerful people than us, and we cannot stop everything. The final scene takes place in Chinatown:
When Cross, Gittes, and Mulvihill reach Chinatown, the police are already there and arrest Gittes. Evelyn will not allow Cross to approach Katherine, and when he is undeterred she shoots him in the arm and drives away with Katherine. As the car speeds off, the police open fire, killing Evelyn. Cross clutches Katherine and leads her away, while Escobar orders Gittes released, along with his associates. One of them urges, "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
The scene is shown using a mix of eye-level mid shots and closeups, to how Gittes is seeing what has just occurred in front of him. The lighting is fairly low-key, only lights from building signs and car lights, but the scene is mostly covered in deep shadows that signify how "in the dark" Gittes was about the whole mystery. This helps to set the astonished, highly emotional tone of the scene, where it seems as if Gittes has finally lost it. The sound in this scene is just dialogue with some very minor sound effects for movement. The scene starts out with a shrill scene, and ends with a whisper-like comment: "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
The mise-en-scène is basic for the scene, because it is just several men and two women standing in the street, surround by a few cars. The décor of the scene is just an empty street, lined with buildings, and a few cars in the background. The costume just everyday clothing from 1930s-era America, with long striped suits, fedora-type hats, large ties, starched white shirts, and brown dressy shoes. The women are wearing dresses and have their hair in a somewhat short, bob-like fashion. The location of the scene is on an empty street in Chinatown, Los Angeles, California. The lighting is low key because it is nighttime and the scene is highly emotional; dark shadows are cast on most of the characters from buildings. The cinematographer uses mid-shots throughout this scene to show where all of the characters are in relation to each other, but he mostly used close-ups to depict Gittes' reaction to Evelyn's death and what it makes him realize about his situation.
The use of low-key light and mid-shots helps to illustrate Polanski's success in his attempt to make the statement that in the end, there will always be more powerful people than us, and we cannot stop everything. Through the low-key lighting, the viewer comes to understand how Gittes realizes the tragedy in the situation he is witnessing: he realizes that Cross will always be there to take advantage of the innocent, be them ignorant residents of Los Angeles or even his own daughters, who he sexually molested. He realizes that there is nothing that he can do because Cross is more powerful then him; he has no chance of avenging Evelyn, so he should not even try. Also, the mid-shots show that the film, and humanity as a whole, is based on interactions between people. Only through interactions with all of the characters does Gittes put together all of the mystery that he is investigating. Mid-shots are perfect for this scene because they show the interactions between characters and allow enough room to depict several peoiple in frame together, as opposed to close-ups which can only show one or two people or wide-shots that do not show any detail of people. This final scene is significant because it establishes two things: Evelyn is shot through her defective eye, which she probably inherited from her father, so her bond with him is severed through her death, but he wins the future, both of LA and his granddaughter (and daughter) Katherine. Escobar thinks that the murderer, Evelyn, was killed when trying to escape, so he allows the real murderer, Cross, to escape with Katherine. He totally misunderstands the situation, but Gittes is no longer able to communicate what has happened. He is totally disconnected from what is going on. When Evelyn was shot in the eye and lost he bond with her father Noah Cross, Gittes loses his connection with the world. He realizes that it is hopeless and he becomes emotionally withdrawn from the world, not even trying to stop Noah from escaping. Gittes realizes that the whole world is like Chinatown: everyone is as hard to read as he once thought the Chinese were. You can never completely tell who is real and who is just acting. When Gittes was a cop in Chinatown, he could not understand the language or culture of Chinatown, so he never knew who was guilty and who was just a victim. It was this uncertainty that led him to become a private investigator. Now he knows that this uncertainity does not solely exist in Chinatown; it is present in every part of the world. In the shooting script, though, Gittes actually tries to tell everyone about the incestuous relationship between Cross and Evelyn, but no one believes him. They take him home, thinking that he's crazy, and Cross escapes, presumably with Evelyn's body and Katherine in his custody. This is in direct contrast to how the scene was actually shot, where Gittes just mumbles and stares in horror. I feel that the way that the scene was actually shot illustrated Polanski's statement better because it showed Gittes acceptance of his situation. Earlier in the film, the script has a passage where Evelyn describes her father's breakdown after the death of her mother. Cross become like a child: he relied on Everlyn as a mother-like figure, even though she was just 15. Soon it happened: Cross raped Evelyn and soon, Katherine was born. Then she moved to Mexico. In the film, this passage is not present, but it could still hold true in the canon of the film because nothing was stated otherwise. In Polanski's biography, it states that his mother died in AUschwitz and he based Evelyn Mulwray's looks and personality after his memories of her. This might be why Evelyn is portrayed as so motherly in the film: to both Katherine and Noah Cross (only in the script). This scene is an example of the failure of adults to comfort children, the loss of innocence for Evelyn. From that point on, she knew the hopelessness of life, she knew not to fight it.After all, as JJ Gittes learned, when it comes to Chinatown (or anywhere in the world) you should do "as little as possible". It hurts you less that way.
(8:20 - 10:00) The scene when the two men approach a woman on a sidewalk, saving her from a gang of vagrants illustrates the theme of nonconformity in society and the consequences of carrying a burden by showing the consequences of stopping the gang from bothering the woman on the sidewalk. First, we are introduced to the gang, a ruthless group of youth adults, led by Roman himself, who like to steal each other's food and throw rocks at cats. Next, we seethe girl, she is a pretty, petite woman, standing alone on the sidewalk, seemingly waiting. The gang tries to sneak up behind her, but they are stopped when she sees their reflection in the mirror of the wardrobe as the two men approach her. The gang gets mad a begin to beat the two men who brought the wardrobe. First, they almost knock out Henryk, then Jakub starts to wind up for a punch, but the gang gets to him first, he beat up by the director, Roman Polanski, who looks to be barely old then a schoolchild.
The scene is shown using a mix of eye-level mid shots and closeups, to show the contention between the two men with the wardrobe and the gang, and wide shots, to show location of characters in the scene. The lighting is fairly high-key, mostly daylight, with some shadows coming from buildings and trees. This helps to set the tense, but brief, tone of the scene. The sound in this scene is just a classical score piece of music and some brief sound effects. There is no dialogue in the scene, as with most of the film because Polanski did not feel that dialogue would add to the conflict in the scene. The only constant sound is the score piece that plays throughout the scene.
The mise-en-scène is basic for the scene, because it is just several men on the sidewalk, with a wardrobe. The décor of the scene is just an empty street, lined with grass, and a sidewalk between the grass and several buildings. The costume just everyday clothing in the style of late-1950s Europeans, with long khaki pants, short caps, long-sleeve checked shirts or short-sleeved striped shirts, and brown outdoor shoes. Many of the men in the scene are young and clean-shaven, but Jakub is slightly balding with a mustache and beard. The woman from the beginning of the scene is wearing high-heiled shoes, and a light skirt suit, with long, straight black hair. The location of the scene is outside a building, on an empty side street. The lighting is high key because it is day-light, but some low-key lighting is used because of the shadows casted by the buildings and trees in the scene that show that it is sometime in the afternoon. The cinematographer uses wide shots throughout this scene to show where all of the characters are in relation to each other, but he mostly used mid-shots to depict the struggle between the two men with the wardrobe and the gang of miscreants.
The use of high-key light and mid-shots helps to establish this scene as an illustration of the theme of this short film: nonconformity in society and the consequences of carrying a burden. Through the high-key lighting, the viewer comes to understand how the two men have put themselves on display; they have nothing to hide. However, not everyone appreciates their "outness": the young gang, already seen trying to bother a young woman, feels that these two men are weak fools that have tread upon the gang's territory, so they have to pay the price with their blood. Polanski did not mean the film to be especially dramatic, like the films of Hollywood in the 1940s. Also, the mid-shots show that the characters in this film represent themes, but there is just as much significance in the story as there is beyond the story: the film focuses on interactions between people. Mid-shot are perfect for showing interactions because they allow enough room to depict several peoiple in frame together, as opposed to close-ups which can only show one or two people or wide-shots that do not show any detail of people. Polanski used a high concept (two men and a wardrobe) to express his disdain of conformity. He create two seemingly blameless characters; throughout the film, they seem to do nothing wrong, always trying to help or be helpful. However, everyone in the town seems to either try to avoid them or tries to pick fights with the two men. One could say that the only thing that the two men could have possibly done wrong is that they are carrying around a wardrobe, which is seen by most people as a sing of femininity In this way, they are nonconformists, choosing to act as they please instead of acting how society believes they should act. These two men could be a metaphor for homosexuality, an issue that had risen to prominence in post-war Europe in the mid-1950s because of changes in European values during this time. In the short film, these two men do not just "come out of the closet" like normal homosexuals, they actually "come out with the closet", which I assume is a stronger declaration of gay pride then merely coming out without bringing the closet along for the ride. Though these two proud men are open about themselves, however; they were not loud about themselves because even men who had never met them, the gang, felt the need to publicly humiliate these poor seamen by beating them to within an inch of their lives. Also, in the end, the two men are rejected: everyone refuses to take the wardrobe, so they must return to the ocean with their wardrobe, having failed their mission of spreading kindness through the town. These are the consequences for the actions of these brave nonconformists. Henryk and Jakub are models for modern age through their openess; however, even the most open and happy spirits are eventually grounded with loss of innocence through the harsh reality of life.
Video (About 8:20 to 10:00):
With the ending of his film, Chinatown, Polanski was successful in his attempt to make the statement that in the end, there will always be more powerful people than us, and we cannot stop everything. The final scene takes place in Chinatown:
When Cross, Gittes, and Mulvihill reach Chinatown, the police are already there and arrest Gittes. Evelyn will not allow Cross to approach Katherine, and when he is undeterred she shoots him in the arm and drives away with Katherine. As the car speeds off, the police open fire, killing Evelyn. Cross clutches Katherine and leads her away, while Escobar orders Gittes released, along with his associates. One of them urges, "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
The scene is shown using a mix of eye-level mid shots and closeups, to how Gittes is seeing what has just occurred in front of him. The lighting is fairly low-key, only lights from building signs and car lights, but the scene is mostly covered in deep shadows that signify how "in the dark" Gittes was about the whole mystery. This helps to set the astonished, highly emotional tone of the scene, where it seems as if Gittes has finally lost it. The sound in this scene is just dialogue with some very minor sound effects for movement. The scene starts out with a shrill scene, and ends with a whisper-like comment: "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
The mise-en-scène is basic for the scene, because it is just several men and two women standing in the street, surround by a few cars. The décor of the scene is just an empty street, lined with buildings, and a few cars in the background. The costume just everyday clothing from 1930s-era America, with long striped suits, fedora-type hats, large ties, starched white shirts, and brown dressy shoes. The women are wearing dresses and have their hair in a somewhat short, bob-like fashion. The location of the scene is on an empty street in Chinatown, Los Angeles, California. The lighting is low key because it is nighttime and the scene is highly emotional; dark shadows are cast on most of the characters from buildings. The cinematographer uses mid-shots throughout this scene to show where all of the characters are in relation to each other, but he mostly used close-ups to depict Gittes' reaction to Evelyn's death and what it makes him realize about his situation.
The use of low-key light and mid-shots helps to illustrate Polanski's success in his attempt to make the statement that in the end, there will always be more powerful people than us, and we cannot stop everything. Through the low-key lighting, the viewer comes to understand how Gittes realizes the tragedy in the situation he is witnessing: he realizes that Cross will always be there to take advantage of the innocent, be them ignorant residents of Los Angeles or even his own daughters, who he sexually molested. He realizes that there is nothing that he can do because Cross is more powerful then him; he has no chance of avenging Evelyn, so he should not even try. Also, the mid-shots show that the film, and humanity as a whole, is based on interactions between people. Only through interactions with all of the characters does Gittes put together all of the mystery that he is investigating. Mid-shots are perfect for this scene because they show the interactions between characters and allow enough room to depict several peoiple in frame together, as opposed to close-ups which can only show one or two people or wide-shots that do not show any detail of people. This final scene is significant because it establishes two things: Evelyn is shot through her defective eye, which she probably inherited from her father, so her bond with him is severed through her death, but he wins the future, both of LA and his granddaughter (and daughter) Katherine. Escobar thinks that the murderer, Evelyn, was killed when trying to escape, so he allows the real murderer, Cross, to escape with Katherine. He totally misunderstands the situation, but Gittes is no longer able to communicate what has happened. He is totally disconnected from what is going on. When Evelyn was shot in the eye and lost he bond with her father Noah Cross, Gittes loses his connection with the world. He realizes that it is hopeless and he becomes emotionally withdrawn from the world, not even trying to stop Noah from escaping. Gittes realizes that the whole world is like Chinatown: everyone is as hard to read as he once thought the Chinese were. You can never completely tell who is real and who is just acting. When Gittes was a cop in Chinatown, he could not understand the language or culture of Chinatown, so he never knew who was guilty and who was just a victim. It was this uncertainty that led him to become a private investigator. Now he knows that this uncertainity does not solely exist in Chinatown; it is present in every part of the world. In the shooting script, though, Gittes actually tries to tell everyone about the incestuous relationship between Cross and Evelyn, but no one believes him. They take him home, thinking that he's crazy, and Cross escapes, presumably with Evelyn's body and Katherine in his custody. This is in direct contrast to how the scene was actually shot, where Gittes just mumbles and stares in horror. I feel that the way that the scene was actually shot illustrated Polanski's statement better because it showed Gittes acceptance of his situation. Earlier in the film, the script has a passage where Evelyn describes her father's breakdown after the death of her mother. Cross become like a child: he relied on Everlyn as a mother-like figure, even though she was just 15. Soon it happened: Cross raped Evelyn and soon, Katherine was born. Then she moved to Mexico. In the film, this passage is not present, but it could still hold true in the canon of the film because nothing was stated otherwise. In Polanski's biography, it states that his mother died in AUschwitz and he based Evelyn Mulwray's looks and personality after his memories of her. This might be why Evelyn is portrayed as so motherly in the film: to both Katherine and Noah Cross (only in the script). This scene is an example of the failure of adults to comfort children, the loss of innocence for Evelyn. From that point on, she knew the hopelessness of life, she knew not to fight it.After all, as JJ Gittes learned, when it comes to Chinatown (or anywhere in the world) you should do "as little as possible". It hurts you less that way.
Video: